Philip S,
Peer review is for science, whereas the Bradfield Scheme is engineering (which uses things such as feasibility studies instead).

But you can read more about it, including some of the criticisms, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Saltpetre,
>Can't figure out how topping-up of the Artesian Basin via aquifers can be done
Why did you say "via aquifers"?
Earlier you seemed to understand that artesian basins ARE aquifers, and now you seem not to!
It's easy to understand that water is being pumped out of the GAB, so why is it so hard to comprehend water being pumped in?

BTW the GAB doesn't stretch to Perth, and though slow on a human scale, the water in it's nowhere near as old as the dinosaurs!

"Bradfield plan"
Philip S,
this plan is a no-brainer for anyone with an ounce of brain,

your ignorance of meteorology is worthless
Aidan,
if it's any consolation I've worked on water projects & I can relate to your type.

that aqueduct would have to be continuous from start to finish
Steele Redux,
that kind of academic logic is what didn't build the Snowy scheme & won't do a thing towards a Bradfield scheme project. Any pragmatist knows that this is a generational project that will take advantage of natural channelling & some tunnels, not aqueducts.
This very low technology project requires pragmatism rather that countless unworkable theories.
Desalination is something I have above average experience with & it is not a viable nor an environmental solution for more than small communities.
For city water supply we can't go past dams & large underground storage. Every storm or squall dumps massive amounts of water which then run off, carrying pollutants into the ocean.
This water must be stored by way of its own free force.
Pragmatists would have no problem building this infrastructure.

Quote "this plan is a no-brainer for anyone with an ounce of brain,"

The fact that it has not been does would indicate something is wrong with the plan.

Aidan thanks for the link it appears that the original calculations were wrong and there are other issues, like if you divert water from a to b, what will be the effects on c where the water was going and all along the way.

From Aidans link.
Bradfield's scheme and others have been criticised because they are not practical.[3] This scheme has been criticised because of the high capital and ongoing running costs which would make the project uneconomic.

Elevation measurements were taken with a barometer, leading to inaccuracies in land heights and mistakes in the proposal.[5] In most cases no flow record of the rivers were available to Bradfield. He used an empirical formula which assumed 33% of the water flow would be lost to evaporation and seepage. The estimated water available for the scheme was 114 cubic metres per second (4,000 cu ft/s).[5]

The extreme evaporation rate in the interior is another negative determinant. No clear evidence has been provided that the amount of water supplied will exceed the evaporation rate. The reduction in river discharge to the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon may diminish coastal fisheries by reducing the supply of terrestrial organic matter to the coastal and estuarine environment.

In 1947, W.H.R. Nimmo, conducted a critical review of the scheme.[5] He proved that Bradfield's estimates of the amount of water available from the easterly flowing rivers were about two and half times greater than it actually was. The error was attributed to the methodology used to calculate flow estimates was based on German rivers where the average temperature was much less than in northern Australia.[5]

There is a modified plan with some support not sure what it is, too lazy to find out at the moment.

individual,
If it's any consolation, your type gave the nickname to the inhabitants of my state.

A popular myth at the time was that good agricultural practice would lead to increased rainfall. "The rain follows the plough" they said, blindly assuming that what worked in Britain would succeed here too. And for a while it looked like it would, with a couple of unusually wet seasons as cropping expanded into the northern Flinders Ranges. But it soon turned out to be coincidence. Crops failed year after year, and soon there wasn't even anything for the farmers to eat...

...except crows.

My, my, my, what an incredible life we lead.
So many misunderstandings of the project in mind, perhaps from skip-reading, or other's poor explanation of the concept, the idea, the essence; or maybe because people are too buried in their own views, their own ideas, or in head-in-the-air science (that wonderful aspirational explainer of all things except of how people may best get along and help one another to a better world, a more peaceful and harmonious world, a unified and sharing world, where no-one need fear persecution or abuse or enslavement to the God of Capital, materialism and ivory towers (like Trump's).

Firstly, we are talking of taking a portion of the excess flooding waters from the North of Western Australia, the Kimberley and environs, or thereabouts (or from western Queensland, as a sister project), (not away from the Great Barrier Reef, and not saline, or polluted, and not as otherwise needed for human establishment or agriculture in the area of origin). Free water which would otherwise just flow in great floods to the sea, the ocean, the world.

Why are we examining this?
To open up some vast semi-arid, sparsely populated areas by taking excess runoff fresh, unpolluted water from the North, towards the South, in stages, and through channels or pipes or underground using natural aquifers, and using this, with biomass fertilizer from coastal settlements, villages, cities, towns, to grow food, employ people, create jobs, opportunities, satellite self-sustaining encampments, towns, villages, cities - based initially at least on solar-powered greenhouse horticulture, and progressively, hopefully, to broad-acre farming - of lentils, wheat, sunflowers, rice, soy, etc, and then on to some bush, then some forest, then some introduced bio-diversity.

A pipe dream? Maybe, but, if we don't strive to create such opportunity, here in Aus, ourselves, then sooner or later someone will do it, and then, it won't be for us, it will be for them, for the new Chinese Order, or nihilsville after the nuclear holocaust.

You pick what you prefer, and then decide - too hard, too expensive, too destructive to the sand, too ambitious, too ...

Climate Change, Global Warming, Greenhouse. Someone on OLO suggested that almost all of the agriculture in the world could not stave-off greenhouse - but how does that person think the world got along when there weren't 7 billion people burning millennial-old fossil fuels, and pouring dioxins and heavy metals and human waste willy-nilly into the ocean, and clear-felling forests, and sucking the guts out of the GAB?

Bah, humbug. If you build it they will come - those on Nauru and Manus, and Bangladesh and Myanmar, and maybe Great Britain?
A heart as big as all outdoors, is Oz, husbanded by the oldest continuous cultural collective on Earth, and now under the care (or at the risk) of some new-bees, some immigrants, called Australians, all.

I leave the world in your capable hands, for I am one, and you and they are many, so it will take someone far greater than me - maybe you can stand up? (Where are you Dick Smith?) And, where the hell are you, Scomo?

(And, goodonya Indi, for being there.)